The
plaintiffs filed suit after a City sewerage line discharged
into their home in 2014, causing damage to their home as well
as their personal property. Although the City provided for
certain repairs to the home, as well as relocation expenses
while their home was being repaired, the City denied their
remaining claim. It instead challenged the extent of the
plaintiffs' loss and asserted that the plaintiffs failed
to properly mitigate their damages. The trial court found in
the plaintiffs' favor as to a first incidence of sewage
discharge, awarding damages for certain contents of the home,
mental anguish, and loss of use. The trial court denied
damages associated with a second sewage discharge event. The
City appeals. The plaintiffs answer the appeal, seeking
additional damages. For the following reasons, we affirm.

Factual
and Procedural Background

The
plaintiffs, Karen and Randall Vincent, allege that on
February 2, 2014, they discovered sewage overflowing from a
toilet into their Iowa home while preparing for a Super Bowl
Sunday gathering. The discharge was subsequently found
attributable to blockage in the City of Iowa's sewerage
line.

Mrs.
Vincent explained that, while preparing for her party, she
noticed that her feet had become wet and that she
subsequently discovered the sewage waste coming from a toilet
in what appeared to her to be a "volcano[.]" The
record indicates that the sewage flowed into multiple rooms
of the home and reached accumulations of up to two inches.
Mr. Vincent was able to stop the overflow by releasing a
"washout cap" outside of the home. He explained,
however, that once the cap was opened, "[e]verything
started gushing out there on the ground. The toilet paper,
fecal matter … you can just about imagine."

With
the overflow stopped, the plaintiffs, along with family
members, immediately began to remove the accumulation of what
was identified as raw sewage from the interior of the home
that evening, doing so until approximately midnight. The City
was contacted the following day, with its Public Works
Director visiting the home. Although testimony indicated that
an obstruction in the line was identified and remedied, the
plaintiffs alleged that a second overflow occurred on
February 5, 2014. Mrs. Vincent explained that she discovered
the second overflow, which purportedly occurred in the master
bathroom.

A few
nights later, the plaintiffs, along with their daughter and
three grandchildren, [1] relocated to two adjoining rooms at a
nearby hotel due to conditions in the home and so that
repairs could be made. With regard to the latter, a
contractor began working in the home, replacing flooring,
replacing sheetrock, and painting the interior. During that
period of construction, the plaintiffs stored much of the
home's contents in a storage "pod" placed on
their driveway for that purpose.

The
plaintiffs and their family returned to their home from the
hotel after approximately two months. By that time, the City
had compensated the plaintiffs for their hotel stay and for
related living expenses. Additionally, the City approved the
payment of approximately $29,000.00 in repairs to the home.
However, the City rejected the plaintiffs' claim for
damages associated with the second discharge, that allegedly
occurring in the master bathroom on February 5, 2014.

Mr. and
Mrs. Vincent filed this matter in January 2015, alleging that
the City's negligence in the maintenance and inspection
of the sewerage system was the sole cause of the occurrence.
The plaintiffs sought an award for property damage,
depreciation of property, mental anguish and emotional
distress, loss of earnings, rental expenses, and other
unnamed damages. Following a two-day bench trial, the trial
court found in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that
"there's no doubt that the City of Iowa is
responsible for the February 2nd, ꞌ14 overflow and the
… backflow into [the] house." However, the trial
court denied certain claimed damages, but awarded damages as
follows: $45,699.00 for contents damages; $75,000.00 for
mental anguish damages ($35,000.00 to Mr. Vincent and
$40,000.00 to Mrs. Vincent); and $60,000.00 for loss of use.
The trial court imposed the latter loss of use award with a
$15,061.00 credit in favor of the City for "loss of use
damages previously paid[.]" The trial court denied an
award associated with the alleged February 5, 2014 overflow.

The
City appeals, asserting that the trial court: 1) abused its
discretion in awarding a total of $75,000.00 for mental
anguish; 2) abused its discretion in awarding $60,000.00 for
loss of use of the residence (with a $15,061.00 credit for
hotel expenses previously paid); and that it 3) was
manifestly erroneous in its award of $45,699.00 for household
property based upon what it considers were unreliable value
estimates. The plaintiffs answer the appeal, seeking an
additional $8,411.51 for replacement items purchased and
$31,256.00 for further damages associated with the repair of
the home.

Discussion

Mental
Anguish Damages

In its
first assignment of error, the City questions whether the
plaintiffs "experienced trauma as a result of the
property damage and, if so, did the Trial Court's finding
that Randall and Karen Vincent were entitled to awards for
mental anguish of $35,000[.00] and $40,000[.00] respectively,
represent an abuse of discretion[.]"

As a
starting point, we note that an award of damages for mental
anguish arising from property damage is limited to situations
in which property is damaged: 1) by a tortfeasor's
"intentional or illegal act"; 2) by an act
"for which the tortfeasor will be strictly or absolutely
liable"; 3) by an act "constituting a continuing
nuisance"; or 4) "when the owner is either present
or nearby and suffered a psychic trauma as a direct
result." Zaveri v. Husers, 16-866, 16-867, p.
21 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/21/17), 224 So.3d 389, 404-05 (quoting
Holzenthal v. Sewerage & Water Bd. of New
Orleans, 06-0796, p. 39 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/10/07), 950
So.2d 55, 79, writ denied, 07-0294 (La. 3/30/07),
953 So.2d 71), writ denied, 17-1286 (La. 11/6/17),
229 So.3d 475. As related above, it is uncontested that the
plaintiffs in this case were in their home, witnessing and
personally addressing the offending overflow of sewage into
the home.[2]

In
Zaveri, 224 So.3d 389, a panel of this court
explained that, although mental anguish damages may be
appropriate in cases involving property damage, the
complained-of anguish must constitute an actual mental
injury. Mere worry associated with consequences of property
damage is insufficient. Id. However, there is no
requirement that associated medical treatment be pursued by
the plaintiff. Id. Turning to review of the award in
this case, we are mindful that "the assessment of
damages in cases of offenses, quasi offenses, and quasi
contracts, much discretion must be left to the judge or
jury." La.Civ.Code art. 2324.1.

The
City argues the circumstances of Mr. and Mrs. Vincent
collectively in its unified assignment regarding the mental
anguish awards. The City acknowledges in its brief that
"[e]xperiencing sewage backing up into one's
residence is undoubtedly a traumatizing experience."
However, in arguing that the quantum awarded is excessive,
the City suggests, in part, that Mr. and Mrs. Vincent
experienced the difficulties in their home for a finite
period, returning to the home after two months of renovation.
Thus, the City contends, if any such award is appropriate in
this case, this court should fashion an award in keeping with
the $2,500.00 award for mental anguish found appropriate in
Thibodaux v. St. Mary Parish Sewer District 07,
09-1466 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/12/10) (unpublished opinion).

On
review, however, we find that the trial court's awards to
both Mrs. and Mr. Vincent are supported by the record. We
first address the $40,000.00 award to Mrs. Vincent. In
fashioning that award, the trial court referenced Mrs.
Vincent's detailed testimony at trial in which she
related her experiences as follows:

There is mental anguish in this case. I kind of let Ms.
Vincent go because she was suffering up here on the stand.
And she probably needed to vent some. Let her go. Get it off
her chest. I'm not going to say that that is what
controls or I'm grounding this decision on, but I could
see her pain and - - still today. S[h]e did mention it to her
doctors during her visits and the doctors, I think Ms.
Vincent said, may have even increased certain medications
because of what happened.

In her
testimony, Mrs. Vincent explained that she previously had
great pride in the presentation and cleanliness of her home,
which was constructed following the destruction of the
family's prior home in the same location by Hurricane
Rita. She described her discovery of the sewage overflow with
detail, reporting that "it was just going
everywhere[]" and that she "couldn't get it to
stop." She explained that the family set about cleaning
the overflow, which she stated "reeked" and which,
in some areas, "was going over [her] foot[.]" In
addition to the hours that the family spent cleaning the home
that evening, both she and her husband continued to attend to
matters at the home[3] during the two months that repairs were
made to the affected areas of the home. As to the scope of
the problem, testimony and documentary evidence indicate that
the sewage spread from the originating bathroom into two
bedrooms, the great room, the foyer, the sunroom, the
breakfast area, the kitchen, and the dining room. Given the
ongoing repairs, the six-member family was relocated from
their 3,000 square foot home to two-adjoining hotel rooms for
two months.

When
asked how the occurrence had affected her, Mrs. Vincent
testified that:

When it was all first going on it was a disbelief. It was
like it wasn't going on. It was like an awful dream. Then
when we w[ere] packing up stuff everybody was trying to help
and everybody was making fun, you better be careful …
because it was, it was my pieces, my antique pieces. A lot of
glass. Pieces did get broke and I'd cringe. Everything -
- all I could see, I guess because it hadn't - - I'm
still not … I'm still not over [Hurricane] Rita
… So going through this, it was like we w[ere] going
all back through it because it was hell … I just could
not deal with it. And when I started losing the fish, the
aquariums[4] and the pieces were just - - you know,
you'd think, look how old they are and once they hit my
hands they're gone. You know, all th[ose] years just down
the tubes.

As
addressed below, Mrs. Vincent further testified that she felt
that the home continued to have an odor, one which she
identified as a "musk" and explained that she now
apologizes to guests to the home. Mrs. Vincent explained
that, although her home had previously been
"pristine," she now felt that there was
"filth" everywhere, and that she lost interest in
maintaining the home as she once did. When asked whether she
was "suffering from depression[,]" Mrs. Vincent
responded: "Oh, yeah." On this point, Mrs. Vincent
denied having sought medical attention strictly related to
this incident, but that "it [was] rolled over
inside" appointments for her pre-existing medical
conditions. As identified by the trial court, Mrs. Vincent
explained that her physician "went up on some of [her]
medicine, things like that[.]"

Other
witness accounts supported Mrs. Vincent's testimony. Mr.
and Mrs. Vincent's son, Randall Vincent, Jr., responded
"Oh, yes[]" when asked whether the incident
affected his mother "emotionally[.]" In particular,
he explained that Mrs. Vincent would "just start
crying" upon the removal of antique furniture from the
home and into the storage pod. He stated that: "Oh, man,
carrying stuff out, seeing where the old finishes of the wood
was just warping and wrinkling, coming off. She'd just
start crying. You know … it's a collection, her
hobby. That's what she loved to do." Mr. Vincent
explained that his wife was "very depressed at
times" and that "[s]he'd brush her hair and,
you know, large amounts of hair would come out from the
stress." Also, when asked to describe how Mrs. Vincent
was affected, her daughter-in-law, Ashley Nicole Cormier,
explained that:

Her - - everything was flipped upside down. They didn't
know when they were going to be able to get back into their
home. She lost a lot of things. She knew that she - - she
knew she was going to lose them. It was upsetting. She was
depressed. She cried a lot. I know it fluctuate [sic] her
blood pressure. She stayed with headaches. She kind of got
quiet and shut down. She didn't want to talk about
anything.

Mrs.
Cormier further explained that Mrs. Vincent "would get
headaches and get so stressed out that she would vomit."

Turning
to the award of $35,000.00 to Mr. Vincent, the transcript
indicates that he too testified regarding his and the
family's initial efforts in cleaning the sewage as well
as his after-hours work to address the ongoing problems at
the home. Mr. Vincent explained that, in the days following
the occurrence, he "[c]ontinued with cleaning trying to
get as much of this liquid up … once you walk across
this wood floor it would seep up between the cracks and
… create little puddles and you'd have to mop that
up or suck it up with … the shop-vac I had." Mr.
Vincent noted that the liquid worked its way underneath the
walls and, in the kitchen, underneath the cabinets. He
explained that the family initially stayed in the home at
night, but that it "reeked" or had a "raw
sewage smell[.]" He stated that they "opened up the
windows in the house to try to relieve as much of the smell
as we could." As explained above, the six-member family
thereafter moved into two adjoining rooms at an area hotel.
Describing himself as a "creature of habit[,]" Mr.
Vincent explained that:

Well, without saying anything bad about the hotel, the hotel
is a great hotel, but it&#39;s not like living at home. It
was terrible. You couldn&#39;t sleep, there was a lot of
noise up and down the hallways at night, you know,
contractors in there, you didn&#39;t sleep as well, it&#39;s
uncomfortable,[5] it's not like being in your own bed.
You think of staying in a hotel, you're going on ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.